The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus to delete (default keep). I considered relisting, but I bet it would get 1 delete, 1 keep, 1 delete, 1 keep ad nauseum. Arguments for and against are of about equal strength. Ergo: NC. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of EDA companies[edit]

List of EDA companies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Fails;

• Wikipedia is not a repository of links
• Wikipedia is not a directory
• Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
  Wikipedia articles should not exist only to contain redlinks and external links. Probably had an established basis for inclusion such as an article at one time, but seems mainly a spam honeypot. Delete Hu12 (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or start deleting everything from multihundred-entry category:Lists of companies. "Spam honeypot" is the matter of cleaning, not deleting. BAsis for inclusion is very simple: Electronic design automation (EDA). This kind of business is not exactly like "List of pizzerias in Mendocino County",and the very existence of a company in EDA is a sufficient claim for notability, way higher than, say, a rapper with 2 singles and two bootleg albums. `'Míkka>t 20:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. EDA is about a $5B business. Most of these companies have been written about by more or less objective sources such as EE Times. It's not easy to keep track of the industry without such a list - I work in the EDA industry, and there are companies here I'm not familiar with, but might be interested in. Also the second part of the list, EDA companies that no longer exist, is very helpful, since these are particularly hard to find by searches, exactly since they no longer exist. LouScheffer (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it appears the purpose of the list is to present external links. That makes it a directory of webpages, and that's against our content policy WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. If the links led to Wikipedia articles, that would make this an acceptable list, but they don't. The Transhumanist 21:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may happily delete external links. What I am going to do right now (moving them to talk page for future processing). Mukadderat (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per Lou and Mikka. It may make sense to restrict the list to those companies that are independently notable (which appears to be a substantial fraction of the list). JoshuaZ (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS notwithstanding, this is a bad list. O, the horror! The horror!. Bearian (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, cleanup. This is a good list: veriviable and well-defined and important sector of industry. Mukadderat (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Also fails Wikipedia:Lists#Purpose_of_lists "However, as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list of red link articles needed) should be in project or user space not the main space" --Hu12 (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yuck-yuck, already fixed: redlinked stuff moved into talk page. Mukadderat (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.